Yet you're more than happy to tell people to vote no. If you don't like being told how to think then perhaps stop telling others how to vote.
Same sex marriage - Yes or No?
- Thread starter tech/a
- Start date
Yet you're more than happy to tell people to vote no. If you don't like being told how to think then perhaps stop telling others how to vote.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
I'm all for free love Tink, it's what powered Australian culture form the end of plaid Menzies reign up until the beginning of the Frasier "life wasn't meant to be easy" dark days.
I wouldn't be too concerned with VC, he'll find God when the straw society he and his mates constructed collapses under its own corruption of the indefatigable innate human bios. It might take a lot of eating crow but he'll have his epiphany for sure, even if it's a bet each way on his death bed.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
I don't know your level of education, but it is not baseless and you should know better than argue the point.
"The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth"
no where does it mention being a bleeding heart.
It's subjective, Where exactly do you think marriage comes into that at all?
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,019
- Reactions
- 8,294
Simply because there is no good reason for SSM to be banned,
1, I believe society is better when people are not discriminated against because of their sexuality.
2, It takes nothing away from exisiting and future straight marriages
3, it's harmless, and I believe only things that cause harm should be banned.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
Really!! I'll have to have another crack. Don't tell me the fizz has gone out of the debate already LOL.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,019
- Reactions
- 8,294
Thats not true at all, the aboriginals had marriage long before white men got here. You are showing you bias towards white history there.
Lots has changed.
1, Polygamy used to be common place, that changed.
2, Men used to have to purchase their wives, and they were his property, that changed
3, Marriages used to be arranged, that has largely changed.
4, divorce used to be illegal, thats changed
5, Men used to be exported to dominate and their wives follow, thats changed
lots of things.
Marriage is now seen as a consenting partnership between equals, based on love and that hasn't always been the case.
Yes of course but what I'm asking is if governments should even control the definition of marriage in the first place. Since they do we now require $110 million to ask them to change it.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,685
- Reactions
- 11,999
Value Collector said:
Some cultures use marriage to bind women to their masters (husbands) and allow the husband to get rid of their wives by just a few words, while the women are not permitted to divorce the man.
A culture that some are very keen to defend.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
No they didn't. I did suggest no anecdotal evidence didn't I?
When in Australia's, Britain's, Europes, etc history was polygamy common place and if true why is it no longer for many many centuries (I assume) past. Some real proofs please and no skyfairy book quotes
While I agree that women were treated as chatels in various pre and non christian cultures and certainly not given the rights men in the street males gained relatively recently, woman weren't far behind in getting those same right, relatively speaking here in Oz. Once again I'd be interested to know when and where your statement applies in modern history Britain and thus Australia?
Well my family history includes wealthy friends and backers of the Plantagenet Vs Lancaster teams and they didn't have arranged marriages, although I'm sure they never planned to marry common people. The other rabble in the tree seemed to do what most people did, hook up get pregnant, have a kid and when the wandering priest or official made his annual visit get the bahn or marriage ratified retrospectively. Indians yes, Mulsims yes, Kings and nobility....I'm guessing they might all be into that
Well if you look at the Oz constitution and preambles it was well and truly on the table as part of the marriage sphere, probably due to Henry VIII giving the forks to the Italian boss 400 years before, what's that depending on how well you family bred like rabbits ... 15 - 20 generations of tradition?
That would be exhorted? Well yes I'm sure there were whole communities that bullied their wives, Yorkshire would have to be a prime example, but in Oz I'm not sure woman didn't have a say in where they lived and how they spoused. Once again my tree dates back to very early SA and Vic and those women were hard nuts who sent there men to places like WA to earn a quid.
That's what the vote will indicate, but you know and everyone knows that the younger generation has no real noble ambition and would rather just see it done and dusted and the baby boomers have been compromised by a trendy grandson or granddaughter who have declared their fluidity and must thus be protected from the phantom lynch mobs who keep demanding the perps be sent out to be dealt with with wicked name calling.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,019
- Reactions
- 8,294
Yes, exactly how we used to be, but as I said we have changed, for the better in my opinion, marriage has continually changed, and simply allowing ssm is just another charge, and a small one at that.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,019
- Reactions
- 8,294
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
that's a different question.
I'm guessing we have to consider Australia's circumstances as two colonial outposts (WA and NSW) of the UK. There was a a native assimilation consideration, convicts, free settlers, etc.
Both colonies had to look at setting up class structures, worker structures, gene structures, etc to ensure survival of the population. As draconian as it might seem strict obedience to the authorities was enforced across the board, not just marriage, but everything including association (which by the way Campbell Newman tried revitalising about 4 year sago here in QLD).
There were different marriage acts in the states and territories; in WA aborigines had to marry a white fella in an effort to breed them "civlilised" and thus the many shamrock natives with Irish and Scottish surnames. In QLD it was opposite for the Murris who weren't allowed to marry whitey.
The confused state laws meant that the federal parliament tended to ignore their role and put it in teh too had basket until after WW2 and the need to get the country galvanised and strong
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,685
- Reactions
- 11,999
The NO case will be presented at the National Press Club today.
How many think that it should not go ahead given that it will be obviously hurtful and homophobic ?
The voice of the future if the heterophobes get their way:-
And of course if she had her way she wouldn't read it because people would not be allowed to say it, or if they did would be hauled through the courts.
How many think that it should not go ahead given that it will be obviously hurtful and homophobic ?
The voice of the future if the heterophobes get their way:-
Penny Wong said:
And of course if she had her way she wouldn't read it because people would not be allowed to say it, or if they did would be hauled through the courts.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,685
- Reactions
- 11,999
Some of us have but I think you know who I mean.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
No that revisionism, just made up stuff like they had flags, wore board shorts and drove purple Valiants
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
I should have added that aborigines had arranged couplings to avoid inbreeding and strengthening the tribe. The male spouse could have many partners, but the woman had to wait until hers karked it to take another.
There was no marriage action, it was just a coupling as part of a social structure, propagation of the numbers, a belief system and future survival of the breed. I'm pretty sure there was no SSM
When you come to think of it, if Aborigines are the oldest civilisation on earth and they don't have a custom of SSM, it must say something about the human genome and nature n'est pas?
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,601
- Reactions
- 12,723
Not If there there was no creation before creation was created. perhaps this is just all a figment of someone's imagination and creation doesn't really exist, vis a vis uncreated.
Blue pill or red pill?
